1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to a hand-holdable applicator or sprayer, specifically, a multi-functional single reservoir mechanical applicator for delivering under pressure a plurality of selected enrichments either singularly or in combination, and more specifically for a hose applicator for delivering a plurality of additives in operator regulated amounts to an outgoing stream of water.
2. Description of Related Art
Today's industry standard for most hose applicators works using principles incorporating Venturi design technology. For example, using a garden hose applicator to apply additives is typically performed by manipulating the speed of a stream of water to create a vacuum that draws and simultaneously mixes additives, such as liquid chemicals, with water. The incoming water stream is generally restricted by a nozzle, while the speed of the outgoing water is a function of the inverted funnel shape at the bottom of the Venturi design. The resultant vacuum attracts the additives to the water stream.
For most spraying garden hose attachments, the amount of chemical introduced to the flow stream is regulated by interchangeable metering tips that restrict chemical flow into the water. These devices work principally from the vacuum created by ordinary water line pressure available in most homes.
The household and industrial products that are most commonly sold for hose attachment sprayers include: cleansers, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, polishes, and waxes. These applications may also impose environmental concerns in that a user may come in contact with, and may ultimately be exposed to, the added product when using or refilling the device, and depending upon the additive, spills can be environmentally hazardous.
There are many different kinds of hose attachment applicators and sprayers that can be connected to a pressurized water system. One prior art attachment sprayer is a trigger operated plastic vessel with a removable threaded cap allowing entrance into the vessel for replacing a granular product. Water entering the tank or reservoir through a small aperture in the bottom portion of the cap comes in contact with and dilutes the contents inside the vessel, where it mixes with a stream of water as it approaches the end nozzle. One advantage of such applicators is that they are inexpensive and easy to use. The disadvantages include dispersing product in limited, unsustainable pulses, not delivering product in consistent, controlled amounts, lacking pressure, and leaking. Additionally, these applicators can only deliver one additive at a time, and must be held in a vertical or otherwise singularly defined position to function properly.
An example of a hose attachment sprayer with an ordinary plastic bottle having a connection for a hose attachment positioned at the top is depicted in two prior art designs, specifically in U.S. Pat. No. 4,491,254 issued to Alan K. Viets, et al., on Jan. 1, 1985, entitled “LIQUID CHEMICAL APPLICATOR,” and U.S. Pat. No. 4,382,552 issued to Lubsen, et al., on May 10, 1983, entitled “LIQUID APPLICATOR.” The top of a Venturi functional device may have an off/on control valve to regulate the dispensing of the contents and water egress from the end nozzle positioned in front of where the device attaches to a hose. One disadvantage of these devices is the lack of pressure, which translates into dispersing only small amounts of product. Consequently, the length of time that these devices operate would not be suitable for industrial applications. Moreover, neither of these inventions is designed for administering a plurality of additives singularly or in combination at the operator's discretion.
Another popular applicator is the air pump sprayer as disclosed in U.S. Pat. No. 4,192,464 issued to Chow on Mar. 11, 1980, entitled “COMPRESSED AIR SPRAYER.” The air pump spray container has a hand-operated air pump attachment for pressurizing the container with compressed air to dispense product through an egress tube connected to an adjustable nozzle end. When pressurized, the Chow design operates similar to a disposable aerosol can in that it loses power with declining vessel pressure. One disadvantage of the air pump sprayer is that it demands considerable effort to keep charged because of its limited capacity for pressurization. It loses pressurization quickly, reducing the flow volume, and shortening the distance of the stream of product issuing the nozzle end. Another disadvantage is that it is not designed for the application of multiple additives.
Another type of sprayer is the spring biased sustained duration pump, similar to the type identified in U.S. Pat. No. 5,810,211, issued to Shanklin, et al., on Sep. 22, 1998, entitled “PUMP ASSEMBLY WITH SLIDING PLUG.” Like the popular air pump, spring operated sprayers provided a pump handle mechanism for pressurizing the vessel, except the spring biased pump does not utilize pressurized air to deliver liquid from the container out the nozzle end. Instead, a spring biased piston is located inside a cylinder where it connects to a rod that extends through the spring, and eventually out of the container terminating with a handle. When the handle is activated, the piston is moved through the cylinder against the spring, drawing liquid from the container into the cylinder through a one-way inlet valve. When the handle is released, the spring exerts force against the piston which pressurizes the liquid in the cylinder. Pressure built up in the cylinder reservoir forces the liquid through a one-way outlet valve into the tube to the issuing spray head which has a spray valve to control dispensing of the liquid. When the spray valve is opened, liquid under pressure flows from the cylinder through a tube to the spray valve, and out a nozzle on the handheld sprayer. When the spring returns the piston to the starting position, the sustained continuous spray ceases and the pump must be primed again. The spring biased sustained duration pump must rest on a solid flat surface, usually held down with one hand while the pump is primed with the other. This is not a sound ergonomic design. Furthermore, the large pump cylinder inside the fluid container is another disadvantage in that it takes up sufficient space, which accounts for the size and the weight of the container, generally on the order of five (5) liters for holding fluid. Another drawback is that the piston rod extends out of the container when the pump is primed. The protruding appendage is awkward and invites a potentially hazardous disadvantage.
In U.S. Pat. No. 3,198,438, issued to Hultgren, et al., on Aug. 3, 1965, entitled, “SPRAYER CONSTRUCTION,” a sprayer is taught wherein the additive or chemical being mixed with a water stream is contained in a disposable collapsible container having an aspirating tube extending into the water stream. The water stream applies pressure to the outer surface of the collapsible container to force a liquid additive through the aspirating tube into the water stream. Importantly, Hultgren's design does not regulate the water pressure to the additive, which would adjust the amount of additive being delivered by the water stream. Additionally, Hultgren does not provide for a plurality of additives that may be administered either singularly or in combination under operator control at varying amounts.
Yet another hand holdable spring biased spray pump exists, where the pump mechanism is in a handheld wand rather than the hollow liquid holding container. One example is found in U.S. Pat. No. 6,415,956 issued to Havlovitz on Jul. 9, 2002, entitled “HAND HOLDABLE PUMP SPRAY APPARATUS.” To pressurize the system, the holding vessel usually is placed on a flat sturdy surface, while the operator holds the spray apparatus housing in one hand and pulls the handle outward from its hand holdable housing were a liquid is drawn into the main chamber, simultaneous with coil spring compression. The main chamber is filled with dispensing liquid when the coil spring is fully compressed. To activate the system the operator pulls back on the trigger mechanism, allowing pressurized liquid to flow through a passage issuing the adjustable nozzle end. The piston rod must be repeatedly pulled out from its housing in order to recharge and prime the device for the short duration it operates. The enrichments issuing the nozzle end are dispersed without significant power, and their volume is limited. The awkwardness of the piston extension rod and long flexible extension tube connected to the handgrip and vessel imposes safety concerns during normal operation. Additionally, normally these disposable containers are not refillable or recyclable and impose yet another environmentally hazardous disadvantage.
In U.S. Pat. No. 7,156,324 issued to Birrenkott, et al., on Jan. 2, 2007, entitled “SPRAYING DEVICE WITH INTERCHANGEABLE CARTRIDGE,” a removable bottle connects to the body of a sprayer for delivering enrichments, whereas the sprayer is attached at an end opposite the enrichment bottle connection. The singular additive discharges from the bottle through the sprayer. The design of the apparatus includes a hand holdable pistol grip with a connection at the bottom for a hose attachment. Where the hose attaches to the bottom of the handgrip there is a back flow pressure valve that prevents the forces of gravity from allowing water and the enrichments in the bottle to return to the hose when the apparatus is not in use while still connected to a pressurized water system. A disadvantage of this apparatus is that the functionality and principles of fluid or liquids issuing the component are not much better than its predecessors, utilizing the forces of gravity and Venturi vacuum technology to control, manipulate, and deliver product enrichments through a larger fluid channel egress from the nozzle end of the spraying apparatus. Still another disadvantage of this type of spraying device is the singularity of the enrichments component that is combined with water issuing the nozzle end. The singular contents of the enrichment bottle dictates one specific application, and the manner in which it issues the nozzle end limits its range both commercially and industrially. The Birrenkott invention relies on the forces of gravity to dispense fluid out of a spraying nozzle head at the end of the apparatus. Additionally, the Birrenkott invention employs large disposable containers or bottles that must be changed periodically and are not environmentally friendly.
As noted, a majority of these devices work only when they are handheld by the operator in a position where the dip tube inside the container remains in a substantially vertical position. Importantly, to function properly, the end of the dip tube nearest the bottom of the container must always be submerged in liquid to draw the contents in the container into the dip tube and ultimately out an egress nozzle end using the principles of Venturi vacuum as well as gravity to dispense fluids.